Fins on boats

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good
NotNowKato!
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:19 pm

Fins on boats

Post by NotNowKato! » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:38 pm

I can’t help but notice that one of the prominent manufacturers have started to sell boats with fins integrated into them.
Weren’t these banned for use a while ago? If so have the rules changed? :?:

User avatar
Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1405
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Canadian Paddler » Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:32 am

There was an attempt to ban fins, but this foundered on such issues as 'what is a fin'

the rule now states
7.1.5 Rudders are prohibited on all boats. Any object protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the hull mould and be no higher than 20mm and no narrower than 8mm with a minimum radius of 4mm on its outside edge
So if they are integrated and of the correct size they are OK.

Still a moot point, what happens if you damage a fin? any repair fails rule 7.1.5 as not moulded in, so does that mean that a damaged fin means that you cannot compete in the boat any longer?...Answers on a postcard.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Steve Agar
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Steve Agar » Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:19 am

Dear Canadian Paddler, Having a lovely time and wish you were here.....

As usual with rules and contracts, wording can never anticipate everything and yet remain useable. Rule 39.1 is unequivocal in that starting a run with boat or equipment that does not conform with the rules should lead to disqualification for the run. (Incidentally, boats should therefore be weighed and measured before a run, not afterwards, but that is a different matter.) If a fin is damaged, any replacement other than a new hull would strictly fall outside rule 7.1.5. In practice, however, any damage is likely to result in the fin still being less than 20mm high, so no problem. If the damage (or wear) causes the fin to be narrower than 8mm or radius less than 4mm, Then strictly, it should be removed (organisers may wish to provide a hacksaw and surform for this purpose) or the competitor disqualified. However, it would be very difficult to argue that any repair that leaves the fin within the required dimensions confers any unfair advantage to the competitor, so there would be no justification for disqualification. Either fins that are the correct size are fair or they are not. If we don't want fins than we shouldn't allow them whether moulded into the hull or not. Not a very sensible rule change, perhaps? Comparing fixed fins with steerable rudders (and I'd love to see a rudder that wasn't moveable, or it ain't a rudder) only adds to the confusion. If I were really being pedantic (not like me, I know), I would question the meaning of the words "higher" and "outside edge" as the rules don't define whether height is measured perpendicular to the plane of the hull at the point of attachment, relative to a horizontal planar surface, in the direction that the attraction of gravity is deemed to be acting, etc., etc. and just which edge is the outside one?

JimW
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: Fins on boats

Post by JimW » Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:29 am

The rule was clearly intended to eliminate clip in, bolt in or glue in/on fins that can be re-configured between runs if the athlete decides a different fin setup will suit the course better. I don't really understand why, is there a rule that says you can only paddle one boat for all your runs in a given race? Surely well funded athletes can simply have different boats with different moulded in fin configurations? That is surely even more elitist?

I'm fairly certain that if there is no obvious seam/joint/fairing compound between the fin and the hull, even when repaired it would be considered to have been manufactured into the hull mould. There must be some official guidance for scrutineers? If the athlete buys gelcoat filler with the boat (ideally the same batch it was made from in case the pigment ratio varies over time) and repairs are done to a good standard it won't even be possible to identify a repair, never mind disqualify it!

I just hope that whatever rationale ICF were using doesn't get turned on WWR canoes - replaceable skegs are so much more practical to maintain!

Personally having seen the kind of damage that WWR sterns pick up (even K1s without skegs), on what is a relatively stiff and strong part of the hull (due to its shape and usually having extra layers), I wouldn't want fins sticking out around the seat area of my slalom boat (or thereabouts) - seems like a recipe for new kinds of punch through damage at the aft end of the fin, especially if you have foam core (maybe manufacturers use solid core over the fins?).

WindsorCC
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:22 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by WindsorCC » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:42 am

I'd assumed the ban came in for safety reasons, as with stick-on fins they could be quite sharp by design. I have a friend who was a composites designer on the McLaren F1 team (now at Ferrari) who made me a carbon set so I could try them out, I wouldn't have wanted to be paddled over by them to be honest....

JimW
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: Fins on boats

Post by JimW » Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:24 pm

WindsorCC wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:42 am
I'd assumed the ban came in for safety reasons, as with stick-on fins they could be quite sharp by design. I have a friend who was a composites designer on the McLaren F1 team (now at Ferrari) who made me a carbon set so I could try them out, I wouldn't have wanted to be paddled over by them to be honest....
I think the radius specified in the rules is to eliminate that problem, and there is no reason they couldn't specify a radius for stick on fins. There must be some other rationale for making them integral?

Steve Agar
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Steve Agar » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:52 pm

Jim,

Rules and rationale (and certainly rational) don't always go together :-)

djberriman
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by djberriman » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:42 pm

WindsorCC wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:42 am
I wouldn't have wanted to be paddled over by them to be honest....
I was equally worried about people getting injured as paddlers returned along the bank and potentially issues rescuing an upturned boat (with or without paddler).

Nick Penfold
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Nick Penfold » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:33 am

The rule was clearly intended to eliminate clip in, bolt in or glue in/on fins that can be re-configured between runs
When you require and check for radiused ends on the boat for safety reasons it makes no sense to let people put blades on the bottom. Between people feeling that a rule change is required and it actually getting into the book a lot of stuff happens and mixed reasons come into play, but I don't think it was about preventing re-configuring.

Arrowcraft
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Arrowcraft » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:31 pm

So I am a little confused. On the face of it, it sounds straightforward enough. But actually, it's not. The rule was created to do away with those huge shark fins that people were glueing onto their hulls. They were clearly dangerous. So the new rule talks about being manufactured into the hull mould and sets parameters.

So Any object protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the hull mould. is the focal point. Does mean that retrospectively fitting any item that protrudes from the hull is unlawful? Possibly not. The hull may have a slit type hole into which the devices could be retrospectively fitted from the inside and sealed. The design of the boat is clearly intended for this purpose and therefore "manufactured" into the mould of the boat. A damaged fit can be swapped out for a new one. If different fins needed, they could be swapped out, as long as they meet the requirements in terms of dimensions.

Or, a flat section of the hull is designed to take a retrofitted object, is manufactured into the mould. the item itself needs to be replaceable for safety and repair purposes.

What about an object that is effectively a Keel line. I've seen one boat, that is currently in development that the athlete has added two pieces of 8mm dowel, around 75cm in length onto the hull and simply taped them on while the right position is found. If he were to permanently glass these onto the hull rather than stick or clip them, then they become a permanent fixture on the boat and are the equivalent of being manufactured into the hull mould. A scrutineer might not readily be able to tell the difference and therefore is there any practical difference?

In the legal profession, there are rules about statutory interpretation. ie What does the rule or statute actually say? What does it actually mean and how is it going to be applied. And these vary from the Literal Rule...what are the actual words used.. The Golden Rule...if the wording is unclear, too narrow, or undermines itself, then the words can be restructured or even rewritten to capture the structure of what was intended so that it makes sense, but only to the extent that it makes sense. This is also known as the British Rule as it only applies in Britain mainly.. and the Mischief Rule- "what is the mischief that the rule is trying to solve." This makes it possible for law and rule writers to implement rules that can be adapted and interpreted to suit situations that are not completely on all fours with the rule. It is a common sense approach to the rules and is the most widely applied approach. Those that think we use the literal meaning of the words used (Literal Rule) are often sorely surprised when the rules are interpreted in a different way to the way that they read. Often, where someone complies with the rule in every way, apart from the actual wording and their solutions provide the same output in every practical sense, then by applying the mischief rule, they are compliant with the rules.

If the rule as read in 7.1.5

7.1.5 Rudders are prohibited on all boats. Any object
protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the
hull mould and be no higher than 20mm and no
narrower than 8mm with a minimum radius of 4mm on
its outside edge

Then it is clearly absurd. It is under the heading....Rudder. A skeg in a wwr or a fin is not a rudder. This starting point puts the rule in a bad position and therefore invites an alternative interpretation. " Any Item" protruding from the hull.... Well, if the hull is shaped in such a way as to produce an uneven surface, part of which looks like a fin, then there is no item protruding from the hull. It IS the hull. Therefore it suggests, that the rule is intended to cover rules only added onto the hull...which by definition are difficult to be manufactured into the mould, apart from fixings...which are not actually mentioned at all. Therefore the rule, in itself, contradicts itself to the extent that it would be impossible to iterpret literally.

The Rule is an ICF rule, so te British (Golden Rule) does not apply, as we sign up to the ICF charter in incorporate their rules. WHICH MEANS WE ARESORT TO THE MISCHIEF RULE. . What is the mschief that is trying to be remedied?

Equipment advantage is not really a basis. We have adjustable seats, adjustable;e paddles adjustable straps. The ability to make a boat perform better on any venue is not a rule breach. At least not that I am aware of. It's not the sentiment behind the rule either, I don't think. It looked and felt like a safety issue for paddlers in the water and marine life. Fair enough. They looked dangerous to me at any rate. They kept breaking and falling off.

So if the rule was that they have to meet the dimensions and be permanently fitted to the boat...as if they were a part of the mould, then that makes sense and everyone can understand and apply it. Then fitting a fin afterwards, that is permanent and therefore the equivalent of being moulded in that is replaceable without replacing the boat or the hull is a sensible interpretation. In my opinion, and it is only a legal opinion until tested in the court for sport which it might end up if the stakes were high enough, but this is Olympic qualifying year so who knows...applying the rule as written makes no sense as it is contradictory of itself, applying the mischief rule brings us to the point that fins or rails fitted must look as if they have been moulded into the hull. This solves the problem and gives the scrutineer the ability to determine if an adaption is legal or not. If they are stuck on with tape or glue.... then no. If they are glassed on with carbon and smoothed into the hull seamless and smooth then yes, they are probably legal.

It would be helpful if we get some clarity on how this rule is going to be interpreted in 2019. Perhaps our committee and ICF panel members can do this for us as soon as possible. Boats are being developed and tested hard for the Olympics and will be used in races this summer with temporary adaptations. The object of the rule was not to prevent innovation after all.

Arrowcraft
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Arrowcraft » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:31 pm

So I am a little confused. On the face of it, it sounds straightforward enough. But actually, it's not. The rule was created to do away with those huge shark fins that people were glueing onto their hulls. They were clearly dangerous. So the new rule talks about being manufactured into the hull mould and sets parameters.

So Any object protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the hull mould. is the focal point. Does mean that retrospectively fitting any item that protrudes from the hull is unlawful? Possibly not. The hull may have a slit type hole into which the devices could be retrospectively fitted from the inside and sealed. The design of the boat is clearly intended for this purpose and therefore "manufactured" into the mould of the boat. A damaged fit can be swapped out for a new one. If different fins needed, they could be swapped out, as long as they meet the requirements in terms of dimensions.

Or, a flat section of the hull is designed to take a retrofitted object, is manufactured into the mould. the item itself needs to be replaceable for safety and repair purposes.

What about an object that is effectively a Keel line. I've seen one boat, that is currently in development that the athlete has added two pieces of 8mm dowel, around 75cm in length onto the hull and simply taped them on while the right position is found. If he were to permanently glass these onto the hull rather than stick or clip them, then they become a permanent fixture on the boat and are the equivalent of being manufactured into the hull mould. A scrutineer might not readily be able to tell the difference and therefore is there any practical difference?

In the legal profession, there are rules about statutory interpretation. ie What does the rule or statute actually say? What does it actually mean and how is it going to be applied. And these vary from the Literal Rule...what are the actual words used.. The Golden Rule...if the wording is unclear, too narrow, or undermines itself, then the words can be restructured or even rewritten to capture the structure of what was intended so that it makes sense, but only to the extent that it makes sense. This is also known as the British Rule as it only applies in Britain mainly.. and the Mischief Rule- "what is the mischief that the rule is trying to solve." This makes it possible for law and rule writers to implement rules that can be adapted and interpreted to suit situations that are not completely on all fours with the rule. It is a common sense approach to the rules and is the most widely applied approach. Those that think we use the literal meaning of the words used (Literal Rule) are often sorely surprised when the rules are interpreted in a different way to the way that they read. Often, where someone complies with the rule in every way, apart from the actual wording and their solutions provide the same output in every practical sense, then by applying the mischief rule, they are compliant with the rules.

If the rule as read in 7.1.5

7.1.5 Rudders are prohibited on all boats. Any object
protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the
hull mould and be no higher than 20mm and no
narrower than 8mm with a minimum radius of 4mm on
its outside edge

Then it is clearly absurd. It is under the heading....Rudder. A skeg in a wwr or a fin is not a rudder. This starting point puts the rule in a bad position and therefore invites an alternative interpretation. " Any Item" protruding from the hull.... Well, if the hull is shaped in such a way as to produce an uneven surface, part of which looks like a fin, then there is no item protruding from the hull. It IS the hull. Therefore it suggests, that the rule is intended to cover rules only added onto the hull...which by definition are difficult to be manufactured into the mould, apart from fixings...which are not actually mentioned at all. Therefore the rule, in itself, contradicts itself to the extent that it would be impossible to iterpret literally.

The Rule is an ICF rule, so te British (Golden Rule) does not apply, as we sign up to the ICF charter in incorporate their rules. WHICH MEANS WE ARESORT TO THE MISCHIEF RULE. . What is the mschief that is trying to be remedied?

Equipment advantage is not really a basis. We have adjustable seats, adjustable;e paddles adjustable straps. The ability to make a boat perform better on any venue is not a rule breach. At least not that I am aware of. It's not the sentiment behind the rule either, I don't think. It looked and felt like a safety issue for paddlers in the water and marine life. Fair enough. They looked dangerous to me at any rate. They kept breaking and falling off.

So if the rule was that they have to meet the dimensions and be permanently fitted to the boat...as if they were a part of the mould, then that makes sense and everyone can understand and apply it. Then fitting a fin afterwards, that is permanent and therefore the equivalent of being moulded in that is replaceable without replacing the boat or the hull is a sensible interpretation. In my opinion, and it is only a legal opinion until tested in the court for sport which it might end up if the stakes were high enough, but this is Olympic qualifying year so who knows...applying the rule as written makes no sense as it is contradictory of itself, applying the mischief rule brings us to the point that fins or rails fitted must look as if they have been moulded into the hull. This solves the problem and gives the scrutineer the ability to determine if an adaption is legal or not. If they are stuck on with tape or glue.... then no. If they are glassed on with carbon and smoothed into the hull seamless and smooth then yes, they are probably legal.

It would be helpful if we get some clarity on how this rule is going to be interpreted in 2019. Perhaps our committee and ICF panel members can do this for us as soon as possible. Boats are being developed and tested hard for the Olympics and will be used in races this summer with temporary adaptations. The object of the rule was not to prevent innovation after all.

Arrowcraft
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:46 pm

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Arrowcraft » Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:05 pm

I said and Item...but meant to quote the rule..."any object." The Hull moulded to include the shape of a fin, is not an "object" protruding from the hull. The hull itself, cannot be an "Object" that protrudes from itself...

Steve Holmes
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:05 am

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Steve Holmes » Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:52 pm

Just a thought, and taking this rule to its extremity, the rule refers to “any object” protruding from the hull. Could this be interpreted as a piece of tape or even a sticker? Both protrude from the hull. I’m not for one instance suggesting that that is an interpretation, but anybody being disqualified or challenged over this rule could argue the point and insist the rule is also applied to those with stickers on their hulls.

JimW
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: Fins on boats

Post by JimW » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:02 pm

So do we now think the rule outlaws external seam tape?

Steve Holmes
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:05 am

Re: Fins on boats

Post by Steve Holmes » Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:47 am

I think it could be argued that the hull begins below the seam tape? However, a repair that protruded from the original hull would technically fall foul of this rule.

Post Reply